Why do some pro-choice women feel the urge to bring up their anatomy when they give a speech opposing the regulation of abortion? Are they trying to underscore their ability to speak knowledgeably on the subject? Are they trying to catch the attention of the press? Moreover, why do these same women so often bring up vasectomies as well? From whence does this impulse to compare dissimilar medical procedures come? Indubitably, these anatomical references and nonsensical comparisons raise a salient question: why don’t males use similar rhetoric?
Some conservatives are constitutionally unable to play chess. Today the administration announced a change in policy: illegal immigrants who entered the United States prior to their 16th birthday will no longer face deportation, instead they will be given work permits. Conservatives should carefully cast the President’s action as an illogical usurpation of Congress’s lawmaking authority. After all, not only are precious few 15 year-olds attached to mamma’s apron strings, but the President lacks the authority to rule by decree. Unfortunately, rather than propose a bill that would thoughtfully address the precise problem, and thereby highlight the administration’s apron-strings logic and obvious over-reach, conservatives will likely upset a tenuous game of presidential chess by simply responding with angry indignation. Alas, anger and political victory are unusual bedfellows.